The News Thread

[TechnicalBarbarity]

"Don LeMon"

 

[CiG]

"Don LeMon"

Reminded me of this:

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

@CiG @HamburgerBoy
"Harvard Law's First Woman of Color"

Reminded me of this:

where is that from? Lmfaoo

 

[CiG]

where is that from? Lmfaoo

Guest House Paradiso! Late 90's comedy movie basically based on a great Brit sitcom called Bottom.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't doubt that the right has its fair share of boomers, but are we really pretending there aren't a shitload of aged liberals who clunk around on social media? Also I don't really get what that has to do with anything, I'm not talking about % vs % of the userbase, I'm talking about biases in how sites are moderated and so on.

Ah, I assumed you were talking about users. And yes, there are conservative users, of course; but social media is largely dominated by those who lean left. That is, those younger users tend to be the ones who comment, retweet, and report.

For one her disingenuous attack on Bernie. Also her backtracking on Medicare-for-all. His stuff on Twitter is too countless to list (you know, everyday Tweets being picked apart by him etc).

The mainstream media blew the accusations against Bernie way out of proportion. Warren shouldn't have brought it up, and the news shouldn't have fanned the flames.

As far as Medicare goes, I think it's funny people didn't expect these walkbacks. Also, this isn't a flaw endemic only to democrats. Trump double-talks on nearly everything; but when he does it, his supporters/apologists think it's awesome.

On one hand the right flooded social media with political propaganda and fake news in order to steal the election from Shillary, on the other hand no conservatives use social media because they're too dumb to work their devices.

Well, it's more complicated than that, and my comment about not being able to work their devices was hyperbole. Clearly there are conservatives on social media, but they typically don't dominate discussions and threads the way their younger, often more liberal counterparts do.

Misinformation on social media spreads through both conservative and liberal users. It has less to do with political affiliation and more to do with the scale of communication. Trump's tweets always go viral, but this has as much to do with his detractors retweeting him as it does his supporters. The viral analogy is appropriate; it's very difficult to contain misinformation, and liberal users aren't immune to it, or to spreading it.

Also, the algorithms make it insanely difficult to stop. I recently searched for some Blaze writer on Google because he made a dumb tweet and I wanted to see who he was. Next thing I know, Blaze ads are popping up on my Facebook stream.

 

[CiG]

The mainstream media blew the accusations against Bernie way out of proportion. Warren shouldn't have brought it up, and the news shouldn't have fanned the flames.

I wouldn't let her or her campaign team off the hook so easily. It wasn't that she simply mentioned it, she intended it as a definitive blow to Bernie's campaign and it was very obviously coordinated with the media.

As far as Medicare goes, I think it's funny people didn't expect these walkbacks. Also, this isn't a flaw endemic only to democrats. Trump double-talks on nearly everything; but when he does it, his supporters/apologists think it's awesome.

Whether people expected it or not, it's important to point out that one of the self-described progressive candidates is walking back key progressive policy positions that would essentially make her redundant in a contest with people like Bernie. I'm not surprised by it, many probably aren't, but it's still important especially if said candidate has much of the MSM in her pocket and on her side.

Walking back on positions is generally a flaw of politicians. I'm not a Trumpster and I'm happy to shit on him for walking back from anti-war and anti-foreign intervention stances he campaigned on. The difference is Warren is walking back on things that other candidates are standing strong on, so why do we need her at all?

Well, it's more complicated than that, and my comment about not being able to work their devices was hyperbole. Clearly there are conservatives on social media, but they typically don't dominate discussions and threads the way their younger, often more liberal counterparts do.

Well sure if all the MAGA zoomers and groypers and alt-lite get banned/forced into the closet on social media, it's going to appear as if only conservative inc boomers are on social media.

Misinformation on social media spreads through both conservative and liberal users. It has less to do with political affiliation and more to do with the scale of communication. Trump's tweets always go viral, but this has as much to do with his detractors retweeting him as it does his supporters. The viral analogy is appropriate; it's very difficult to contain misinformation, and liberal users aren't immune to it, or to spreading it.

I'm not particularly concerned by misinformation left or right, except when one side's misinformation is privileged over the other's. Then you get a dangerous imbalance. Also if liberal users had their way, Trump's Twitter would have been cucked by now anyway.

 

[Einherjar86]

I wouldn't let her or her campaign team off the hook so easily. It wasn't that she simply mentioned it, she intended it as a definitive blow to Bernie's campaign and it was very obviously coordinated with the media.

I agree she intended it as a blow, but I think it's reaching to say she coordinated with the media (unless I'm not understanding what you mean by that).

Whether people expected it or not, it's important to point out that one of the self-described progressive candidates is walking back key progressive policy positions that would essentially make her redundant in a contest with people like Bernie. I'm not surprised by it, many probably aren't, but it's still important especially if said candidate has much of the MSM in her pocket and on her side.

Walking back on positions is generally a flaw of politicians. I'm not a Trumpster and I'm happy to shit on him for walking back from anti-war and anti-foreign intervention stances he campaigned on. The difference is Warren is walking back on things that other candidates are standing strong on, so why do we need her at all?

I think Warren's negotiating a platform that would appeal to left-wing voters and more left-of-center voters. I'm not sure it will work. For what it's worth, I know a ton of younger academics who can't stand her and plan on voting for Bernie; so I don't think her strategy is winning. The primaries would seem to back that up.

What I think some people don't understand is that she has a sense of incremental change and an understanding of how social institutions work. Bernie might have a compelling and radical vision, but he doesn't have any plan for how to arrive at it. I think Warren has a better chance of instituting functional change and not pissing off jackasses who think anything and everything left-of-center is communist (that is, if they can quell their grievances long enough to actually witness some of her plans in action). She's an institutionalist and a managerialist, and I get that a lot of Trump supporters/apologists don't like that. But we live in a society of institutions and systems, and we need someone who understands how they work.

If all you know how to do is break something, you can't actually change it. The way to change something is to learn how to take it apart and reassemble it differently.

 

[CiG]

I agree she intended it as a blow, but I think it's reaching to say she coordinated with the media (unless I'm not understanding what you mean by that).

During the debate the questioner (paraphrasing) asks Bernie if he told Warren that a female could never be president, he says of course he didn't say that. Then she turns to Warren and asks her how she felt when Bernie told her a female could never be president.

I think Warren's negotiating a platform that would appeal to left-wing voters and more left-of-center voters. I'm not sure it will work. For what it's worth, I know a ton of younger academics who can't stand her and plan on voting for Bernie; so I don't think her strategy is winning. The primaries would seem to back that up.

Sounds like she's walking back on her initial progressive campaign policies, no?

What I think some people don't understand is that she has a sense of incremental change and an understanding of how social institutions work. Bernie might have a compelling and radical vision, but he doesn't have any plan for how to arrive at it. I think Warren has a better chance of instituting functional change and not pissing off jackasses who think anything and everything left-of-center is communist (that is, if they can quell their grievances long enough to actually witness some of her plans in action). She's an institutionalist and a managerialist, and I get that a lot of Trump supporters/apologists don't like that. But we live in a society of institutions and systems, and we need someone who understands how they work.

If all you know how to do is break something, you can't actually change it. The way to change something is to learn how to take it apart and reassemble it differently.

It's fair criticism, on the other hand; it seems like the Democrats have been doing incrementalism for decades and little of substance has actually changed. The problem with institutionalists is that they tend to be all talk and gusto when stumping for the job, then once they're in they become part of the office decor until it's time to campaign again.

 

[Einherjar86]

During the debate the questioner (paraphrasing) asks Bernie if he told Warren that a female could never be president, he says of course he didn't say that. Then she turns to Warren and asks her how she felt when Bernie told her a female could never be president.

In fairness, I think that could entirely be the rhetoric/phrasing of the moderator, and have nothing to do with any coordinating.

Sounds like she's walking back on her initial progressive campaign policies, no?

I think you could make that argument. Again, I see it as an effort to win over less progressive voters.

It's fair criticism, on the other hand; it seems like the Democrats have been doing incrementalism for decades and little of substance has actually changed. The problem with institutionalists is that they tend to be all talk and gusto when stumping for the job, then once they're in they become part of the office decor until it's time to campaign again.

I'd actually contest this. Incrementalism does work, but it works very slowly (as the term implies). People like fast change because slow change is harder to see; and in some cases, incremental change works over multiple presidential terms. The stalemate in more recent decades is that when the presidency turns power over to the other party, much of the work that was in process gets canceled and undone. Institutions are there to make sure proposals have multiple sets of eyes looking them over, but they get a bad rap because this inevitably slows down the process. It also involves a lot of talking because when you're dealing with things via the proper institutional channels, the only power available is discursive power (there's a great book about this by Karen Litfin, called Ozone Discourses; it's about the Montreal Protocol, which is a historical example of incremental change).

It's a double-edged sword to be sure, but it's preferable to unplanned deconstruction, in my opinion.

 

[CiG]

In fairness, I think that could entirely be the rhetoric/phrasing of the moderator, and have nothing to do with any coordinating.

I'm more conspiratorial than you are.

I think you could make that argument. Again, I see it as an effort to win over less progressive voters.

It's not an either/or situation dude. She's walking back her progressive policies she initially ran on to dine on the center.

I'd actually contest this. Incrementalism does work, but it works very slowly (as the term implies).

I don't think incrementalism isn't a functional method for change, but some change is more urgent than others.

The stalemate in more recent decades is that when the presidency turns power over to the other party, much of the work that was in process gets canceled and undone.

Anything works until it doesn't.

Institutions are there to make sure proposals have multiple sets of eyes looking them over, but they get a bad rap because this inevitably slows down the process. It also involves a lot of talking because when you're dealing with things via the proper institutional channels, the only power available is discursive power (there's a great book about this by Karen Litfin, called Ozone Discourses; it's about the Montreal Protocol, which is a historical example of incremental change).

It's a double-edged sword to be sure, but it's preferable to unplanned deconstruction, in my opinion.

I think you're mischaracterising Bernie and Warren here. Bernie is hardly some anarchistic maniac! He's not some messianic figure come to kick over the Tower of Babel, he's a career politician and a former mayor of Vermont for 8 years. I know I don't need to tell you this but I think you're getting lost in your own argument.

I also remember in 2017 when Donna Brazile and Elizabeth Warren said Bernie was cheated by Clinton and the DNC in 2016 and they both subsequently walked it back. It's not necessarily that Warren walked back on some of her key progressive positions, I'm not a progressive so it's not like I'm heart-broken, but it displays a general kind of lack of spine. The kind of spine required to engage in institutional incrementalism without letting the machinations of such a huge multi-faceted beast distract you from the goals you wish to achieve.

I just don't believe for a second that Warren could withstand the forces of the deepstate, its eagerness for foreign intervention, surveillance statism, and so on.

Edit: Whew bad spelling tonight.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

the data you so confidently insist upon, are provided from biased sources...... If you want "facts," here's Vox article"

"Studies done by Arizona State University, Texas A&M, Indiana University, Monmouth University and Gallup polls are bias media sources but here's a Vox article..."

...lmao what a brainlet

 

[CiG]

Good segment, odd title as there's very little about Bernie in the clip. Just a quick rundown of why Ball thinks Warren's campaign is going downhill. I'm thinking of a new nickname for Elizabeth Warren lately... #WalkbackWarren

 

[Einherjar86]

"Studies done by Arizona State University, Texas A&M, Indiana University, Monmouth University and Gallup polls

They are when being disingenuously cited by a third party site. I only saw one actual reference to a university study (ASU). The Indiana link was a bust, which I mentioned; you didn’t acknowledge.

here's a Vox article..."

...that cites a study by Emory U (which you can actually access).

...lmao what a brainlet

Not doing yourself any favors pal.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

I only saw one actual reference to a university study (ASU).

what a lying sack of shit you are ....

Researchers from Arizona State University and Texas A&M University questioned 462 financial journalists around the country.

... sources ...

Nathan Y. Sharp
Texas A&M University - Department of Accounting

Andrew C. Call
Arizona State University (ASU) - School of Accountancy

Scott A. Emett
Arizona State University (ASU) - School of Accountancy

Eldar Maksymov
Arizona State University (ASU) - School of Accountancy



Monmouth University ....

According to a Monmouth University survey last year, 77 percent of voters think that “fake news reporting happens at least occasionally” in the mainstream media, an increase from 63 percent of voters who thought so in 2017.

By excluding a major cable news network with journalists who are willing to ask candidates tough questions, the Democratic National Committee is only doubling down on its heavy influence on the mainstream media and denying voters the right to know all the facts about the people vying to become our next president. American voters are certainly not pleased.

In 2013, a 59% majority reported a perception of media bias, with 46% saying mass media was too liberal and 13% saying it was too conservative.

Gallup Polls...

A September 2014 Gallup poll found that 44% of Americans feel that news media are "too liberal" , 19% believe them to be "too conservative"

In 2017, a Gallup poll found that the majority of Americans view the news media favoring a particular political party; 64% believed it favored the Democratic Party, compared to 22% who believed it favored the Republican Party.

Indiana University source...
Willnat, Lars, and David H. Weaver. 2014. The American Journalist in the Digital Age: Key Findings. Bloomington, IN: School of Journalism, Indiana University.

Center for Public Integrity ....

A study conducted by the Center for Public Integrity during the 2016 election revealed that more than 96 percent of political donations from journalists went to the Hillary Clinton campaign. Moreover, just a few weeks ago, prominent television journalist Lara Logan warned that the mainstream media harbors serious political bias, arguing that the right leaning news outlets often get drowned out by the liberal publications.

Rasmussen Reports ...

A Rasmussen Reports survey in late October found that 45% of all likely voters in the midterm elections believed "that when most reporters write about a congressional race, they are trying to help the Democratic candidate."

Just 11% said the media would try to help the Republican. And only 35% said they thought reporters simply try to report the news in an unbiased way.

Rasumussen notes that this "helps explain why Democratic voters are much bigger fans of election news coverage" than others. They see it as favorable to their own beliefs.

and even a site that usually favors the likes of scum like you ....
MediaBiasFactCheck

NBC
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/nbc-news/

ABC
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/abc-news/

CBS
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cbs-news/

MSNBC
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/msnbc/

CNN
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/

And lets be real, we both know i can keep going and link you to endless studies, polls, articles that prove exactly what i said. That the mainstream media basically belongs to the left.

...that cites a study by Emory U (which you can actually access).

Emory U lmao....

They are when being disingenuously cited by a third party site.

....

Vox

 

[CiG]

Speaking of people who need to be shot in Central Park...



On to more hilarious news:

Pete Buttigieg campaign did not pay for Iowa Caucus app.

CLAIM: Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg’s campaign funded the creation of the app that was used to tally votes during the Iowa Caucus.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Buttigieg’s campaign paid the company that created the app that failed during the Iowa Caucus for different technology services.

Spoiler

 

[Einherjar86]

And lets be real, we both know i can keep going and link you to endless studies, polls, articles that prove exactly what i said.

Because you have no life?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Because you have no life?

I hear the Lemon Drop is your favorite mixed drink ....

 

[Einherjar86]

Seriously dude, you have way too much free time.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

i always have time when it comes to breaking you. xoxo

 

[Einherjar86]

I didn’t realize I was such a big part of your life.